Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that resignation results in a break in service, which may, in turn, disqualify a staff member for consideration for a permanent appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that if a staff member took issue with the requirement for a break in service, he or she should have challenged it at the time by requesting management evaluation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Hajdari never challenged his separation from service from Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵMIK or, at any time after his arrival in New York, made any request to human resources to be reinstated at the time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Mr Hajdari¡¯s...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant, though entitled to receive a summary of the findings of the investigation report, was not entitled to receive a copy of the full investigation report without showing exceptional circumstances, which he did not do and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT, therefore, upheld the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT on this point. On compensation, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the Appellant presented no evidence to prove that the violation of the three-month deadline undermined the investigation and the outcome of the complaint, or that he suffered actual prejudice. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration¡¯s offer of USD 1,000 was...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in concluding that the staff member¡¯s eligibility for ASHI should be determined based on the date of her recruitment to the ICTY in October 2006 instead of her appointment to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAKRT in October 2009. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, under Staff Rule 4. 17, the date of recruitment that is relevant for determining the terms of appointment of a former staff member who receives a new appointment after separating from the Organisation is the date of the new appointment. In the staff member¡¯s case, her new appointment with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAKRT was a re...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding regarding the application of ST/AI/2002/3, namely that as the provisions of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Separation Policy contravened the ones in ST/AI/2002/3, the latter should apply, was an error of law and fact as ST/AI/2002/3 was not applicable to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the timing of the decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s permanent contract for unsatisfactory service meant that a new procedure should have been initiated based on the new period of reference. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would be unreasonable to require the Administration to restart the termination...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while it may be argued that the Appellant did not request her transfer to Amman, she consented to it, and the transfer was effected for her personal convenience. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the text of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Area Staff Rule 107. 9 was clear and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly concluded that she was not entitled to the payment which she sought. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, contrary to the Appellant¡¯s submissions, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT did not exclude her evidence. Recalling the broad discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT to ascertain the weight to attach to the evidence before it, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA found that the Appellant¡¯s evidence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, in agreement with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, that the decision of 23 April 2013 when the Appellant was informed that his post would be abolished on 31 December 2013, constituted the contested administrative decision in the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the Appellant that, in its Order No. 98 (NY/2014), Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT made no reference to considering receivability as a preliminary issue, however, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not establish that such an error resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision or had any effect at all on the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim that he did not receive a fair trial...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an interlocutory appeal against Order No. 116 and Order No. 126 by Mr Staedler. Regarding Order No. 116, Mr Staedler requested that the Order be rescinded, that Order No. 078 (NBI/2014) be reinstated, and that the Secretary-General¡¯s reply be stricken as untimely. Regarding Order No. 126, Mr Staedler requested that the portion of the Order admonishing him be rescinded and that the Order not be published in its present form. On Mr Staedler¡¯s contention that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT should receive the appeal because it was an exceptional case in which Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a request for revision of judgment No. 2014-Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT-436 as well as a motion requesting that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT strike certain paragraphs from it. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the request did not fulfil the statutory requirements and constituted, in fact, a disguised attempt to re-open the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that his application was not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the application for revision.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the decision to set up a fact-finding panel was not, in and of itself, a decision relating to the contractual rights of a staff member. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that such a decision was preliminary in nature and irregularities in connection with that decision, including alleged delay in reaching that decision, may only be challenged in the context of an appeal after the conclusion of the entire process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s conclusion that the application was receivable was without legal basis as was its award of compensation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...